Related Stories

A large majority of residents feel safe in their public housing units in Leeds and Grenville, a recent survey indicates.

A survey of tenants in 481 counties’ units in August found that 79 per cent feel secure or very secure in their apartments, with that feeling of safety dropping to 73 per cent in common areas.

Overall, 75 per cent of residents would recommend social housing as a good place to live, according to a report to the counties’ joint services committee by Alison Tutak, director of community and social services.

Tutak’s report is in response to pressure from two township mayors that public housing buildings in their municipalities revert to being seniors-only buildings, instead of allowing rent-geared-to-income tenants of any age.

Jones asked that the joint services committee consider reverting the building to seniors-only. Mayor Pat Sayeau of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal asked the same consideration for public housing at 33 Bennett Street in Spencerville.

Tutak’s report was diplomatic and neutral in tone, but it was clear that the administration favours the status quo.

She said that all landlords in public or private housing must deal with ill-behaved tenants regardless of age.

“The behaviour issues that Leeds and Grenville deals with in its portfolio are varied and span across all age grouping,” she said in her report. “In consultation with the non-profit providers that serve only senior-aged tenants, they experience similar issues.”

In other words, tenants can be troublemakers at any age.

Tutak said experience shows that landlords find it impossible to predict beforehand which tenants will turn out to be bad apples.

And the public-sector landlords have a lot less leeway in weeding out bad tenants than do private landlords, she said.

The law prohibits Leeds and Grenville from denying public housing to people because of mental-health issues, criminal records and bad credit. To do so would put the counties at risk of a human-rights violation, she said.

“If the motions to designate the Westport and Spencerville buildings as senior-only are based on the desire to reduce numbers of ill-behaved tenants, staff is concerned that this is not the correct remedy,” she writes. “The behavioural issues within social housing are similar for senior-aged tenants as for non-senior aged.”

Tutak said restricting public-housing units to seniors-only would cut the waiting lists for those buildings but dramatically increase the waits for other buildings.

As examples, Tutak cites the housing units in Lansdowne and the building at 80 Water Street in Brockville, both of which switched to seniors-only in 2014. Before the switch-over, the Brockville building had a waiting list of 150; now it is 42. Similarly, the waits in Lansdowne dropped from 12 to two.

But the most startling effect of the switch-over of the Brockville building is the impact that it had on the buildings at Hastings and Reynolds Drive in Brockville. The waiting lists for those two buildings are now 11 to 23 years.

“The struggle to find safe and affordable accommodation for a single person of low income is significant and thus the demand for rent-geared-to-income housing across all age groupings is often high,” Tutak said in her report.

If joint services wants to go ahead with designating Westport and Spencerville for seniors-only, Tutak recommends that it lower the age limit to 55 from 65. She said the counties could also designate the first floor of two-storey buildings for seniors and allow the second floor to be used for younger tenants without accessibility needs.